I'm probably genetically programmed not to like certain items that other people genuinely relish - Formula 1, DIY and tea and coffee for example. I've experienced each one enough times to know I'll never truly enjoy them, so I won't keep retrying until I do.

It follows then that certain frequencies, chords combinations and note clusters will resonate with me in a way they never will for other ears.

As much as I adore The Beatles I realise there are those born with hard coded DNA blindspots for the Fabs, much the same as I have for bob Dylan, U2 and The Clash. Arcade Fire and British Sea Power are contemporary examples with plenty of fizz, froth and knowing nods about each band - but both leave me cold. So what is the benefit of trying to retrain and rewire my neural pathways by going through an ‘eat your greens' routine only to reach a point where I may entertain them - rather than they entertain me.

I realise it can be an enriching and rewarding experience if there is a Eureka moment (John Martyn and Crosby Stills and Nash were for me) - but with some (mainly new) music the dividends rarely justify the time invested. Typically, it's ‘vintage' music that's new to me, rather than contemporary new music - that I'll still be playing one year on from first hearing.

And if it's taken 'X 'amount of times taste testing a batch of average new bands, isn't that a waste of a 'X' amount of times that could've been spent discovering a new dimension to an old favourite, or unearthing some dusty nugget that's simpatico with those pre programmed preferences. You wouldn't keep re-reading/watching/visiting a second rate book, film or holiday spot until you finally like it - so why should we feel obliged to do the same for music?